gay rights

Stephen Fry is undoubtedly one of the nation’s favourite storytellers. He beguiled a generation as the voice of the best-selling Harry Potter audiobooks and as the host of QI, he regularly flaunts his anecdotal prowess. But can he tell one of the most important stories of the 21st century? Can he grapple with the global struggle for gay rights? In Out There, the celebrity polymath rises to the challenge.

Out There is a two part BBC documentary series in which Fry explores attitudes towards homosexuality around then world. Over a period of two and a half years, he travels to Uganda, Russia, Brazil, India and the US. In some countries, like India, things seem to be moving in the right direction. Others – most notably Russia and Uganda – are heading backwards.

The programmes are primarily comprised of interviews. Fry talks to both the victims of homophobia and political figures pushing anti-gay prejudice.

The director, Fergus O’Brien, has said that he wanted to put love (and the prohibition of it) at the centre of the story. By broadcasting the personal struggles of those robbed of loved ones and those separated from their partners, he is successful in doing so. The programme is not laden with statistics, but with devastating accounts of how homophobia has affected individuals and families around the world. This approach strikes a chord where a more impersonal one may have struggled.

Fry himself is at his best when interviewing the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of homophobia. He responds to their recollections with sincerity and warmth. His understated, yet sympathetic approach permits viewers to reflect on what they are hearing. This is important, as the stories themselves certainly leave a lasting impression.

It is heartening to hear from a range of voices and to hear Fry acknowledge the importance of seeking these out. In the second episode, Fry visits an ostracised transgender community in India and is then filmed asking a wealthier gay audience to use their privilege to empower those living outside the liberal metropolis. The programme makers could have simply showcased the struggles each nation’s English-speaking middle-class. Instead viewers benefit from brave editorial decisions – they are asked to identify with those in very different circumstances to their own.

Fry meets with homophobic politicians in Uganda, Russia and Brazil. Needless to say, these exchanges are somewhat more fiery. Some might claim that Fry is too heated and passionate in these meetings. They may argue that by goading and laughing at these influential figures, he somewhat lets them off the hook. However, in interview after interview, these individuals demonstrate that they are unwilling to consider any opinion but their own and so the room for debate is severely limited. It should be said that Fry still gives this his best shot – going into each encounter hopeful that the man opposite him will listen to reason. But he soon finds his comments are falling on deaf ears.

The best Fry can hope to achieve with these interviewees is to expose their ignorance and the dangerous absurdity of their views. At one point the Ugandan Minister for ‘Ethics and Integrity’ is filmed claiming that heterosexual rape is more justifiable than homosexuality because it is “natural”. These encounters are both bizarre and upsetting. Laughable and yet chilling. One often is often uncertain of how to react, but not once bored.

The phrase ‘emotional roller coaster’ is undoubtedly an overused cliché which no self-respecting critic would employ. However (perhaps unfortunately for me) it does describe Out There rather well. Alongside Fry, I was reduced to tears on multiple occasions. I shed tears of joy at triumphs of equality and of sadness at the harrowing tales of abuse. Out There is a well-constructed, profoundly moving and important documentary series. For anyone interested in gay rights or simply the human cost of prejudice around the world, it is well worth a watch.

Gay marriage will very soon be back on the Westminster agenda. A number of arguments will once again be put with vigour against legalising gay marriage. Many of these will be emotionally charged. This is understandable, as for many, marriage is a particularly emotive issue.

However, some – both in and out of Westminster – will attempt to use that emotion as a smokescreen for the fallibility of their arguments. This should be called out. In 21st century Britain, if you want to deprive a large group of people of a right that really matters to them, you can’t do it by quoting scripture.

As a guide for those who aren’t quite sure if what they are regurgitating is in any way valid, I’ve taken the liberty of picking apart some of the worst arguments that will be put forth for keeping gay marriage illegal.

‘There is no mandate for this debate’

Far be it from me to recommend what I believe is a purely opportunistic Tory progressivism, but if you actually look in the Conservatives’ 2010 equality manifesto, under LGBT you will find a promise to, “consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.” That’s more of a mandate than for the cuts to the NHS, which, we were promised, would never, ever happen. Tory backbenchers and Daily Mail journalists, desperate to promote democratic accountability, might like to consider campaigning against these instead. Would certainly save more lives.

NB. In case you missed it, a huge public consultation was also carried out with the majority of 228,000 respondents supporting equal marriage.

‘This will lead to a breakdown of the family’

Admittedly, this one is more popular in the US than over here, but it is still wheeled out occasionally. ‘Statistics show’ that as gay partnerships are going up, old-fashioned marriages are declining. Gay marriage will, allegedly, only serve to reinforce the implied link. Repeat after me; correlation does not equal causation. This should be obvious and it doesn’t even (really) need to be said. How many men and women do you personally know that are planning on abandoning their families if civil partnerships are reclassified as marriages? I imagine that it’s a number close to zero.

‘Marriage, in this country, has always been for a man and a woman’

The sentiment behind this declaration is, ‘Things have been like this for a while, so they should stay like this.’ It is not an argument that history looks kindly on. Institutions change with attitudes. Until 1967, sex was, in the eyes of the law ‘for a man and a woman’ and few are arguing to overturn the Sexual Offences Act that kicked off the legalisation of homosexuality. Voting was once for men. Housing was once for whites. Tradition can be overturned and we can all be better off for it. This is not controversial.

So if you’re looking to oppose gay marriage, make sure you’re not planning on using one of the aforementioned arguments. Also, try to avoid words like ‘sick’ and ‘abhorrent’, as they really aren’t going to help your case amongst the ‘decent, hard-working’ people you’re no doubt seeking to appeal to. Once you’ve taken these rebuttals into account, if you really are stuck for an argument against gay marriage, perhaps consider that maybe, just maybe, there’s a reason for that.

Privacy/cookies notice: My site uses cookies and analytical services to collect data on how you’re using the it, to remarket and ultimately provide you with a better experience. If you keep using it, I'll assume you're OK with that.OK